[Music] Welcome to Audit the Audit, where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions. This episode covers bicycle laws, resisting an officer, and collateral consequences and is brought to us by Code Blue Cam's channel. Be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve. On October 11th, 2022, several officers with the city of La Crosse Police Department attempted to stop 27-year-old Keaton Stein, who was riding a bicycle in La Crosse, Wisconsin. The following footage was captured on the officer's body cameras. Take a win, buddy. There's more cars coming. Stop the thing. You got a bike light out. It's just a bike light, you idiot. You want to get bit? I'll send them right now. Running. That's all it needs. You want to get bit? You have no bike light. There's an ordinance for that. All yours is looking at tickets. If I have to get out and chase you, you're going to jail automatically. Cuz you have you don't have a bike light and you ain't stopping for police. Why why does it have to go to this, dude? Because you won't stop. You're the one making the decision, not me. But you need to stop when a cop asks you to stop. Says who? Name the law. Obstructing. 946.41 para 1. That's because you don't have a light on your bike. The officer informs Mr. Stein that he is stopping him because his bicycle does not have a light, but Mr. Stein continues riding, claiming that the lights on the street were sufficient. According to section 346.02 of the Wisconsin statutes, quote, "Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway or shoulder of a highway is subject to all the duties that this chapter applies to the operator of a vehicle, except those provisions that by their express terms apply only to motor vehicles or that by their very nature would have no application to bicycles." Additionally, under section 340.01 of the Wisconsin statutes, the term vehicle is defined as, quote, "Every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, which would include bicycles." And the definition of the term bicycle explicitly states that a bicycle is a type of vehicle. As such, officers can conduct standard traffic stops on bicycles based on probable cause. And because section 347.489 of the Wisconsin statutes states that, quote, "No person may operate a bicycle upon a highway, sidewalk, bicycle lane, or bicycle way during hours of darkness unless the bicycle is equipped with or the operator is wearing a lamp emitting a white light," a court would almost certainly conclude that the officer here was within his authority to stop Mr. Stein for riding his bicycle without a light. Section 346.04 of the Wisconsin statutes states that, quote, "No person shall fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order, signal, or direction of a traffic officer." And that, now quoting again, "No operator of a vehicle, after having received a visible or audible signal to stop his vehicle from an officer, shall knowingly resist the officer by failing to stop his vehicle as promptly as safety reasonably permits." In the 2016 case of State versus Weber, the Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that law enforcement had probable cause to arrest an individual for violating the statute when he failed to pull over after a deputy activated his emergency lights and ignored the deputy's verbal calls after him. In this situation, Mr. Stein looked back at the officer and verbally responded to him multiple times while refusing to stop. So, it is likely that a court would conclude that Mr. Stein knowingly resisted the officer's commands to stop. On the ground. Get on the ground. On the ground. Get on the I didn't do Right now. Get on the ground. On your face. Why won't you listen, dude? Why won't you guys listen? I didn't do anything. I already explained it to you. Oh, I didn't have a bike light? ALL RIGHT. CHILL THE OUT. MY ARM HURTS. STOP RESISTING, MAN. PLEASE STOP. [Music] You power-hungry cops always trying to with somebody. Guess what? If you would have just pulled over, it wouldn't have gone this way. Guess what? If you just off and let me go home, none of us would have this problem. Okay. Are you injured? Yes. Okay, what hurts? My shoulder. What do you think? Okay. Well, we got an ambulance coming. You good? No, my shoulder. All right. Let me look at it. All right. What's your None of your business. All right. Well, you can just go to jail and get a For what? For resisting now. How do you figure? How do you figure? Because you didn't stop. I got out of my car. I don't need to stop. I wasn't doing anything. The only thing I was going to do is stop you and write you a warning for not having a bike light. for not having a bike Really? You have nothing better to be doing? Nope, this is the best as it gets. Dude, what's your name? Do you have an ID on you? In your pocket? We're going to have to search you anyways. Is it in there? I don't answer questions. All right. I'm going to hop up. All right, get up. Easy on the shoulder. I'm going to laugh too when he ain't finding nothing that you obviously seem to think you're finding. Nope, we're going to search you before you go to jail, is all. Go to jail for what? Resisting, possibly causing injury now. Oh, causing injury? Yeah. Another officer needs medical attention. Oh, he needs medical attention? For what? I haven't talked to him. The officer informs Mr. Stein that he's going to jail for resisting and possibly being charged with resisting causing injury to the officer that tackled him. Wisconsin's resisting and obstructing statute, which is found in section 946.41 of the Wisconsin statutes, states that, quote, "Whoever knowingly resists or obstructs an officer while such officer is doing any act in an official capacity and with lawful authority is guilty of a class A misdemeanor." The Wisconsin jury instructions for this statute define resisting as opposing an officer by, quote, "Force or threat of force." And explained that obstruction occurs when, quote, "The conduct of the defendant prevents or makes more difficult the performance of the officer's duties." In the Weber case that we discussed earlier in this episode, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that in addition to having probable cause to arrest the defendant for failing to obey a traffic officer, law enforcement also had probable cause to arrest him for resisting an officer when he failed to stop after a deputy activated his emergency lights while driving behind his vehicle. So, based on this precedent, it is highly likely that a court would conclude that Mr. Stein resisted officers by refusing to stop, as he clearly acknowledged the officer's attempts to stop him and refused to comply. Additionally, it is possible that Mr. Stein could be convicted of resisting an officer causing injury under this statute based on the fact that the officer that tackled him suffered a separated shoulder. Section 946.41 states that if an individual resists or obstructs and, now quoting, "Causes substantial bodily harm or a soft tissue injury to an officer, they are guilty of a class H felony." Now, because the statute defines a soft tissue injury as, quote, "An injury that requires medical attention to a tissue that connects, supports, or surrounds other structures and organs of the body and includes tendons, ligaments, fascia, skin, fibrous tissues, fat, synovial membranes, muscles, nerves, and blood vessels," the officer's injury in this situation would almost certainly qualify as a soft tissue injury, as a separated shoulder involves tears to the ligaments in the shoulder. However, it is less clear whether Mr. Stein's conduct could be legally considered the cause of the officer's injury, since the officer was injured by his own physical action in tackling Mr. Stein and not by any exertion of force by Mr. Stein. According to the jury instructions for the obstruction statute, quote, "Cause means that the defendant's act was a substantial factor in producing great bodily harm." In the 1989 case of State versus Bartlett, the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin applied the so-called substantial factor test when analyzing whether a fleeing suspect could be held responsible under a similar provision of the eluding statute for injuries resulting from multiple vehicle collisions involving the pursuing squad cars, but not the fleeing suspect himself. The court explained that, quote, "Where the statute involves a specified result that is caused by conduct, it must be shown as a minimal requirement that the accused's conduct was an antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred." Additionally, the court maintained that, quote, "The criminal responsibility is placed upon the one who precipitates the need for a chase by not heeding a signal to stop." And, now quoting again, "That responsibility is not excused because of concurrent or intervening negligence of the pursuers." However, the court also noted that the state must further establish that, quote, "The harmful result in question be the natural and probable consequence of the accused's conduct." So, based on this analysis, it is possible that a court could determine that Mr. Stein's refusal to stop was the cause of the officer's injury, as his repeated refusal to stop arguably necessitated the officer's use of force to stop him. However, it is also possible that a court could conclude that the officer taking physical measures to stop Mr. Stein was too far removed and not a, quote unquote, natural and probable consequence of his refusal to stop. Sit down, please. We're not going anywhere, obviously. My name is Keaton. What's it say on the ID? Sorry. Why'd you choose to be a cop? May I got to say? You're like you're like doing like good for the greater good or something? Like what? I don't know. What do you do? You run from the police? Do you feel like you're doing Because I don't trust the police. Look at all the people getting shot by police for walking. Oh, yeah. Just for walking. Yeah, just for walking. Don't even have any warrants, bonds, anything. decided to run. That was pretty stupid, wasn't it? reason not to. You had no reason not to? Yeah, meaning You just had every reason to just hop out and say, "Hey, what's going on?" I would have wrote you a warning and you would have been on your way. I don't with cops. I have no quarrel with y'all and y'all shouldn't have any with me. I don't have any with you. You do, apparently. No, we actually do. You You stopped You refused to You refused to obey a lawful command. Because who are you? I don't give a if you got a badge or not, dude. You ain't no better than me. I never said I would do my father or my mom. Well, I'm glad because I'd be pretty disappointed. You know what? You know what the that was like, dude? So, yourself. What's your name? Officer Labreck. Get back. I just got off my bike. Is your shoulder dislocated? Do you shoulder tackle me. Is it dislocated? I didn't do to him. And I'm going to get catch a charge for it? Yep. Well, this whole This whole situation could have been avoided if you just would have stopped. could have been avoided. You could have been out doing something worth the time. I told you this is good as it gets, bro. This is as good as it gets. Somebody on a bike. Yep. Find a new job. Definitely is right with you. You're like the only one who's been cool. I'm sorry for like No, you're You really can't transport really? No, I mean he's making the arrest. It's not a felony charge, right? It is a felony charge. Are you serious, dude? You realize how badly that me, right? Well, I'm not the one that chose to run from the police. Whatever. I swear to God if this charge doesn't get dropped, that That's it. Like my life is basically over. Great. Upon learning that he is being charged with a felony, Mr. Stein claims that a felony conviction will ruin his life. In addition to longer prison sentences and higher fines, felony convictions typically have a greater negative impact than misdemeanor convictions on the everyday life of those who are convicted, even after they have served their time. The legal and regulatory restrictions that apply to convicted individuals are commonly known as collateral consequences. And according to the National Inventory of Collateral Consequences of Conviction, they can prevent individuals who have been convicted of crimes from accessing employment, business and occupational licensing, housing, voting, education, and other rights, benefits, and opportunities. Additionally, according to the American Bar Association's Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions Judicial Benchbook, collateral consequences may also include ineligibility for public benefits such as food stamps and government-sponsored student loans and grants, and disqualification from providing foster care to family members. In Wisconsin, individuals are not eligible to vote if they are currently serving any portion of a felony sentence, including extended supervision, probation, or parole. Once the sentence is completed, individuals must re-register to vote to restore their rights, while those serving a misdemeanor sentence remain eligible to vote. Further, Wisconsin prohibits those convicted of a felony from possessing firearms and holding public office, and these rights may only be restored by pardon. Although Wisconsin law limits when employers may consider an applicant's conviction record, employers can refuse to hire applicants when they have convictions that are substantially related to the employment. Likewise, any occupational license can be denied or revoked based on convictions that substantially relate to the circumstances of the particular licensed activity, and some licenses can be denied or terminated if the licensee is or has been convicted of any felony offense. So, given the particularly harsh collateral consequences associated with a felony conviction, Mr. Stein is probably correct in his assertion that the officer's choice to pursue a felony charge against him would have a more negative impact on his life than if they charged him with a misdemeanor. Oh, you're not allowed on your bike. Congratulations. Now you're cuz you didn't stop. I ain't telling you to stop. Are you the one that said that about if you were my dad, you'd be disappointed, too? I just said I'd be disappointed if I was your parents, yeah. Well, that's not I I didn't ask for your opinion as far as that's concerned. It's pretty up. Okay, well, I be very careful what you say to people. You don't know their situation or their story. You're right, I don't. I apologize. Thanks. Yeah, they really up my right side, too. What's that? Feels like my kidney's leaking or something. Okay. Well, we're going to the hospital, so they'll check you out down there and make sure everything's good. whole After Mr. Stein was arrested, the injured officer was taken to a local hospital and diagnosed with a separated shoulder. Mr. Stein was also transported to a local hospital where he was medically cleared before being taken to the La Crosse County Jail. Mr. Stein was charged with felony resisting an officer causing substantial bodily harm or soft tissue injury, misdemeanor disorderly conduct, and operating a bicycle without lights during dark hours. As of the date of writing this episode, the charges against Mr. Stein are still pending. Overall, the La Crosse officers get a C+ because although they maintained a professional and respectful demeanor throughout the interaction and likely remained within the bounds of their legal authority, I question whether tackling Mr. Stein off of his bicycle was truly necessary, particularly given that he was being stopped for a simple traffic violation, and both the officer and Mr. Stein claim to be injured in the use of force. However, courts have consistently held that officers are not required to use the least intrusive means available to them. And as Mr. Stein had repeatedly refused to stop of his own volition, a court would likely conclude that tackling him to prevent his flight was not unreasonable or excessive under the Fourth Amendment. Likewise, I also disagree with the officer's decision to pursue a felony resisting causing injury charge against Mr. Stein under somewhat tenuous legal grounds based merely on the fact that an officer happened to injure his shoulder after he chose to tackle Mr. Stein. Now, although it is indisputable that Mr. Stein's flight was a but-for cause of the officer's injury, it also seems clear that Mr. Stein was not trying to physically injure anyone. And in my opinion, choosing to charge him with a felony offense seems vindictive and spiteful. All that said, the officers did not commit any blatant constitutional violations and appeared to remain within their authority throughout the video. Mr. Stein gets an F for repeatedly refusing to stop for a lawful traffic stop, likely violating the state eluding and resisting statutes, and maintaining a disrespectful and defiant demeanor throughout the encounter. Mr. Stein repeatedly made it clear that his refusal to stop stemmed from his lack of respect for law enforcement officers in general. And although he's entitled to whatever feelings he wants to have about police officers, the unavoidable truth is that the law requires him to comply with their orders in certain situations. Although I understand Mr. Stein's concerns regarding the pettiness of this offense, the law is clear that officers can stop and in some instances even arrest individuals for this kind of minor offense. And the officers were almost certainly within their lawful authority to stop him for his lack of a bicycle light. For this reason, I would encourage Mr. Stein to reconsider his blanket refusal to recognize police commands he does not find to be reasonable or worth his time, or else he will continue to find himself in situations like this one. Let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic that you would like us to discuss in the comments below. Thank you for watching, and don't forget to check out my second channel for even more police interaction content. [Music]